Ngāpuhi at a crossroads: Unity, settlement and the future of the North
The largest iwi in Aotearoa has yet to settle its Treaty claim. As debate continues, Pene Dalton makes the case for clarity and courage. And settlement.
Ngāpuhi is the largest iwi in Aotearoa, with over 180,000 people connected by whakapapa – and our population is growing. That growth brings pride and potential, but also pressure – more mouths to feed, more rangatahi seeking opportunity, and more whānau navigating systems that have long failed them.
Many in our rohe live with the daily realities of poverty, addiction, poor housing and disconnection. Mane Tahere's public plea to address the meth crisis wasn't an exaggeration, it was a heartfelt call for help. It voiced what many already know, but don't always say out loud: Ngāpuhi faces deep and complex challenges.
Some believe a Treaty settlement for Ngāpuhi will solve everything. It won't, but it could help. A settlement would likely bring resources to support housing, education, language and land-based initiatives. Still, even if Ngāpuhi settled tomorrow, it would take decades to see the kind of results achieved by other iwi.
Tainui and Kāi Tahu, for example, have built economic platforms worth billions – but only after nearly 30 years of investment, leadership and learning from missteps. Ngāpuhi hasn't even begun that journey in a unified way. We're still debating how to get to the starting line.Some suggest a Ngāpuhi settlement might be worth around $500m. It's not an official figure, just an estimate. Many argue it's far too low, pointing to bailouts like the $1.6bn for South Canterbury Finance. But the real question is: are we ready to receive and grow that pūtea?The greatest challenge isn't the dollar figure, it's unity. Getting a mandate from all hapū within Ngāpuhi is incredibly difficult. Ngāpuhi is not one voice. Some want hapū-led negotiations, others support a unified iwi-wide approach. There are real concerns about losing mana motuhake and justified distrust of imposed structures.
There is a time to protest and hold the Crown accountable, but some of us have remained in that space too long. There's also a time to negotiate. The table may be flawed, but we still need people who can sit at it with integrity, strategy, and a long-term view. That mahi will never please everyone, but it's necessary.
Do we settle as one iwi or splinter into hapū-based settlements? If we settle, can we stay united enough to manage what comes next?Some critics ask why Ngāpuhi doesn't follow other indigenous models overseas. But no two treaties are the same. They were signed under different circumstances, with different governments, and different histories. While we may share similar values or trauma with other indigenous groups, that's often where the similarities end.
Even among iwi here, comparisons can feel uncomfortable. Some say we shouldn't compare ourselves to others – there's truth in that. We need to carve our own course. But comparisons to iwi not far removed from us culturally or historically can offer insight. If others have taken 30 years to build their base, we should be honest about the road ahead for us.
We also need to be strategic. If we're holding out for legal recourse instead of settlement, what would that actually involve? What would it cost and where would that money come from? These questions deserve serious discussion, not just slogans.
Personally, I support settlement – not because it's perfect and not because I think it will solve everything – but because I want to see pūtea flowing into kaupapa that are already making a difference. For me, it's about starting to rebuild, not waiting for ever for the perfect solution.
There's another hard truth: many of us are still hoping for recognition without realising that political leverage matters. If we aren't voting. or voting strategically, why would those in power listen? Until we can influence the makeup of a government, we're relying on goodwill. That's not enough.
Some argue settlement is a sellout. That money is the root of all evil. That engaging in this process means giving up our mana. I've heard it many times, but I disagree.
Our tūpuna weren't afraid of money. They weren't afraid of trade, negotiation or enterprise. Even before coin and currency, Māori had an economy. We bartered across the motu. Pounamu, kai, textiles, tools, knowledge. We understood value. We had systems grounded in reciprocity, mana and trust. Ngāpuhi sent produce across the sea to Port Jackson, Sydney. We traded with whalers, missionaries, merchants. We adapted and we built.
Some prefer the term 'restitution' over 'settlement', I understand that. But my impatience to see tangible change – to see investment in the initiatives already doing the mahi – makes that debate feel more about language than impact.
Money is not foreign to our tikanga – it's a tool. If we want to restore our people, our land, our reo, our oranga, we need resources. That's not assimilation, it's tino rangatiratanga.Many Māori who were raised in cities are returning home – descendants of those who left in search of work. Some were raised disconnected from Ngāpuhi identity, reo and tikanga. Their return has brought energy, ideas, and sometimes tension. These shifts have reshaped parts of the rohe – for better and for worse – but this too is part of our evolving story.
If you carry Ngāpuhi whakapapa, you have a right to care and a right to speak. Whether you're in Kaikohe, Tāmaki, Perth, or Nagasaki, Japan. Ngāpuhi are some of the most opinionated people you'll ever meet – and that's not a weakness – its a sign of life, pride and connection.We won't all agree – we never have – but we all have a stake in where we're headed. Settlement is not the destination, it's just the beginning. We owe it to our kaumātua who've carried this burden for decades and our tamariki and mokopuna who will carry it forward. Most of all, we owe it to ourselves to step up with courage, clarity and purpose.
Now is the time.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
3 days ago
- Newsroom
Let's call ‘taxing the rich' what it really is
Opinion: Last month the Government, under urgency, halted all pay equity claims thereby disproportionately affecting women who experience pay inequality. This is one of many policies that included gutting government departments and cutting public service spending to accommodate a massive wealth giveaway in the shape of tax cuts to landlords (a policy designed to supposedly stabilise rents but which seems to have had little impact). As reported in March last year, the tax giveaway to landlords is estimated to cost the country $2.9 billion. To put this in perspective, that is more than the amount paid in Treaty settlements since 1985, which is about $2.7b. In other words, in one year, the current Government awarded landlords more money than has been paid out to Māori in 40 years as compensation for historical wrongs. I note this to introduce my central concern that economic policy, as has been the case for the last four decades, is dominated by the central myth (now axiomatic for almost every government) that all our ills will be solved if we keep giving as much money as possible to the rich. This is based on three central assumptions of current economic dogma that those who question are branded as 'radical leftists'. These assumptions are underpinned by the beliefs that wealth trickles down; deregulation is good for business; and the state should stay out of the market and everything should be privatised. First, wealth, especially when given away in tax cuts, does not trickle down. It stays at the top. Ever-increasing wealth inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient or any study of income trends show this. Second, seen from a purely corporate perspective deregulation is no doubt a path to profit. However, it is also socially disastrous as costs of deregulation are outsourced via public bailouts following financial crises, for example, that are directly caused by the rolling back of legislation designed to safeguard the wider economy. Third, the state has always been an economic entrepreneur funding all kinds of technological innovation, such as the internet, but this often goes unreported in the dominant economic journalism. All this results in top-heavy, financially starved economies as governments continually try to make the wealth giveaways fit into a budget by stripping support for public services or selling off public assets at knockdown prices. (There is a tendency to undervalue the future social benefits of publicly owned resources.) Such sales are no more than an attempt to generate a short-lived financial hit that dissipates as quickly as the resources we all once owned. The fact that the global economic outlook as well as specific national economies remain so fragile and unstable, and are increasingly unable to secure the basic needs of their populations in terms of health, education and social support, is surely enough evidence that the principle of continually moving wealth upwards doesn't work, certainly not for society as a whole. However, because it has become communal liturgy, recited from almost every media pulpit for the last 40 years, it has become increasingly difficult to challenge. Just as there is no economic justification for structuring an economy in which only the very wealthy are the true beneficiaries, there is also no moral justification. From inside this dogma, the moral justification has always been that it is the rich in the form of investors and entrepreneurs that are the only wealth creators, and so they deserve to reap the wealth they create. But you only have to see the collapse in wealth creation during the pandemic when workers could not work, to know that workers also create wealth. Yet many are told they do not even deserve a living wage. Supressed wages is of course one way to structure an economy (there is no such thing as 'the' economy, by the way) to ensure wealth moves upwards. This results in a phenomenon called corporate welfare where the state has to step in to pay benefits to allow workers to actually live. What this means is that the money taxpayers pay out in social welfare is really a direct contribution to shareholder dividends. Welfare often compensates for the company not paying enough to workers so it can pay more to investors. This is another example of the outsourcing of problems for which the government picks up the tab. Just as the Joker begrudgingly loves Batman for maintaining the order he gets to break, the neoliberals love the government because they know it will be compelled to bail them out – a phenomenon known as the 'Greenspan Put' named after the US Fed chair who first bailed out the banks in 1987. Tax breaks are, of course, the main way to benefit the wealthy by directly increasing the wealth they keep and by breaking the public purse and public services. This then opens up new opportunities for privatisation and profit that will benefit a very small group. And I haven't even mentioned our non-existent capital gains tax. The assault on the Te Tiriti ō Waitangi is another example of efforts to structure an economy to favour the wealthy. Aside from the persistence of a colonial mentality hostile to all things Māori, Te Tiriti remains a firm barrier to expanding corporate appropriation of public resources. Should the Regulatory Standards Bill get passed (another piece of legislation aimed at weakening democratic control of resources and opening them up to private exploitation), Te Tiriti will be all that protects us. As our society is placed under increased stresses and strains beneath the extreme weight of amassed, socially useless wealth that sits with a very small class of people, there have been increased calls to tax the rich. I think we need a different slogan. In keeping with the dogma, conservative supporters have made tax a dirty word. Rather than tax being an individual or corporate contribution to the maintenance of a functioning society, the corporatist right has over the past four decades tried to make it a synonym for theft. The idea that taxing the rich is really a form of theft also makes it easy for the dogmatists to present the call as a form of envy; a petty resentment of the successful. Instead of a call to 'tax the rich', the call should be to 'reclaim the wealth'. I believe this phrase more adequately represents the request to return a greater share of what was commonly created. It is also a call to give back even just a small amount of what was taken through the design of an economy knowingly and carefully organised to purposefully benefit the few. Even if the progenitors of the dogma genuinely thought it would be a social good, which is hard to believe because they themselves do not believe in society, there is no reason to believe the fantasy now.
NZ Herald
6 days ago
- NZ Herald
Te Pāti Māori haka sanctions debate continues in Parliament today
The debate on whether Te Pāti Māori co-leaders will face the toughest Parliamentary sanctions ever dished out continues today after it was abruptly adjourned last month to give way to the Budget. The debate is set to begin around 3pm. It will be livestreamed at the top of this article. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Labour and the Greens MPs are expected to push fiercely for a weaker punishment while National is not expected to budge. Parliament's Privileges Committee has recommended suspending Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer for 21 days and MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke for seven days after a controversial haka in the House last year. The longest suspension in Parliament's 171-year history is three sitting days. The committee's recommendations will be put to the House for debate and likely pass. Labour's shadow leader of the House Kieran McAnulty said Labour believed Te Pāti Māori had overstepped and that they should be sanctioned but that 21 days was disproportionate. 'Our contributions to the debate will be focused on that and not trying to defend their actions.' National minister and Leader of the House Chris Bishop said he was keen to get the matter sorted. Last month, Bishop had unexpectedly called for the debate to be adjourned. Bishop's justification was that if the Te Pāti Māori MPs were suspended from Parliament that particular week, they would miss the debate on the Budget. He also believed delaying the debate would bring the temperature 'down a notch' after recent heated commentary. 'My strong preference would be for Parliament to deal with it, deal with it once, have a big debate about it and then finish it,' he told reporters on Wednesday. 'It's before Parliament, we've had the report, frankly New Zealanders expect us to get on with the business of governing. This is a distraction from the major issues as to why we were elected to this Parliament.' The haka at the centre of the matter happened during the first reading of the controversial Treaty Principles Bill, which was eventually voted down at second reading. The haka has since gone viral globally, amassing hundreds of millions of views on social media. Maipi-Clarke, Parliament's youngest MP, brought Parliament to a standstill when she began the haka while ripping up a copy of the Treaty Principles Bill, a proposal from Act leader David Seymour to replace the many Treaty principles developed over time by experts and the court with three new ones. Many perceived the bill as a threat to Māori and detrimental to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was a catalyst of the massive hīkoi protest to Parliament in November last year. Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer stood up and joined Maipi-Clarke in the haka, moving from their seats towards the Act party benches. Labour's Peeni Henare also moved away from his seat to perform. Henare later apologised to the Judith Collins-led Privileges Committee for knowingly breaking the rules by stepping away from his seat, but said he stood by his haka and would do it again. The trio from Te Pāti Māori were referred to the Privileges Committee but ignored the initial summons to appear in person, arguing they had been denied legal representation and the ability to appear together. At the time, they promised to hold a separate 'independent' hearing. Te Pāti Māori have been defiant in their defence of the haka. Waititi told reporters on Wednesday afternoon it was not clear exactly what the trio were being punished for. 'Some of the House found it intimidating, some of the House found it exhilarating because half of House stood up. We don't know what the reasons are for the 21 days sanctions.' Waititi spoke with The Hui soon after the committee's unprecedented recommendations were released. He said he was thinking about the people who had entrusted him to 'represent them the best way I know'. 'And that is to be unapologetic, that is to be authentic and honest and respectful of who we are. We should be able to do that without fear or favour and be able to do that without being ashamed of being Māori,' Waititi told The Hui host Julian Wilcox. 'What I feel is that we are being punished for being Māori. The country loves my haka, the world loves my haka, but it feels like they don't love me.'
The Spinoff
6 days ago
- The Spinoff
What was Chris Bishop thinking? An earnest attempt to figure it out
It's an objectively crazy way to behave. But I kind of get it, writes Duncan Greive. This time last week, Chris Bishop was having an awesome day. A massive NZ music fan, heading to the big awards show – a great night ahead of him. I saw him there, standing alongside his colleague Paul Goldsmith, next to the bar during the intermission. Bishop looked like he was having an excellent time, though to be fair everyone did – the awards are huge and informal and a great night out. As we now know, the fun wouldn't last for Bishop. Within a couple of hours he'd muttered derisively during a performance by Stan Walker and had a confrontation with Don McGlashan, a singer and songwriter so universally beloved that both Newstalk ZB and RNZ, which agree on very little, describe him as a national treasure. By the following day, Bishop's comments had become the biggest news story to emerge from the awards in years, and Bishop no doubt deeply regrets not keeping his opinions to himself. In the week since, he has stood by his statements on the night but acknowledged, both to media and to the prime minister, that he 'should have kept my thoughts to myself'. Bishop confirmed to RNZ that he'd said something about 'performative acclaim' during Walker's performance and referred to it as 'a load of crap'. It was poor timing. It was also just plain wrong. Walker's performance was one of the highlights of the night, a soaring ballad (he is becoming New Zealand's Celine Dion – a huge compliment, to be clear) which really took flight when the room filled with supporters waving Toitū te Tiriti flags, prompting an outpouring from the room. This seems an open and shut case, and I'm not here to defend Bishop – that would be almost as foolish as his behaviour – but there are mitigating circumstances which feel material to the current public prosecution. 1. Toitū te Tiriti is a complex organisation Stuff political editor Luke Malpass once adroitly observed that the Green Party likely scoop up a non-trivial proportion of its votes from people who feel a general dread about the climate and environment, and feel marginally better by giving the party their vote, and don't look much deeper into the policy platform or what they most emphasise. There's a similar phenomenon at work with Toitū te Tiriti. It's both a phrase and an organisation, a sentiment and closely allied with a specific parliamentary party. The phrase is well-supported, with more than seven in 10 New Zealanders endorsing the idea of 'harmonious race relations through honouring te Tiriti', according to polling by the Human Rights Commission earlier this year. At a guess, Bishop is one of them, as among the most prominent and unambiguous members of the liberal wing of the National Party. However, Toitū te Tiriti is also an organisation, one which achieved an awe-inspiring level of support during the hīkoi mō te Tiriti earlier this year. The organisation created a vast, countrywide response to both the Treaty principles bill and what supporters perceive as a large number of policies which go against the spirit of te Tiriti. But while the support for that general idea is broad and will necessarily include voters for a number of parties, the organisation Toitū te Tiriti has deep ties to Te Pāti Māori, most notably through one of its key organisers, Eru Kapa-Kingi, a teaching fellow at the University of Auckland who stood unsuccessfully for parliament in the 2023 election on Te Pāti Māori's list. Supporting the phrase is one thing, supporting the organisation another, and knowing how to practically apply it across society and politics is, to put it mildly, complicated. This is likely what Chris Bishop was trying and failing to express in the moment. 2. Arts and culture has a near total lack of representation for right wing politics Labour's Willie Jackson is not wrong in his statement on the Chris Bishop affair. 'Look around the world, people have been doing that for years. Whether it's Bob Marley, Bono, whatever, it's been happening, it's not like something new. He should talk to his Shihad heroes, 'cause the lead singer there's got pretty good politics too.' The phrase 'good politics' is telling there, but likely to be something the vast bulk of the music awards crowd endorses. I am old enough to have been to music awards since Helen Clark was prime minister. She received cheers and appeared on stage, with (mostly) undivided affection from the crowd. Over the years the likes of Chlöe Swarbrick and Jacinda Ardern, before and after their elevation to party leadership, have been largely lauded while in attendance. One notable exception was Homebrew's Tom Scott, who condemned Ardern for not visiting Ihumātao during the occupation – essentially a criticism of a centre left prime minister from the left, asking for a more explicitly leftist position. Bishop is manifestly a very genuine fan of New Zealand music. He regularly goes to shows, buys t-shirts, advocates for it whenever he can. He attended multiple dates on the final Shihad tour. He is its most prominent and present champion within the National party, perhaps the biggest fan the party has ever had. He will also not be unaware of the general politics of not only musicians, but arts and culture makers and workers more broadly. But he shows up and attempts to present an acceptable face of a party and a broader worldview which is anathema to many fans and almost all makers in the rooms he frequents. Where culture and politics collide What likely boiled over in Bishop is the tension which is always present and rarely voiced in these discussions. Music, TV, film, arts and culture in New Zealand receives a significant amount of support from central and local government. It's not enough, and it's not a huge amount compared to some other countries. But it comes from all taxpayers and ratepayers, which naturally includes many people who hold differing political views. Who might believe in toitū te Tiriti (the sentiment), but not the particular ambitions and ties of Toitū te Tiriti (the advocacy organisation) as a microcosm of the broader goal. So Jackson is right, music has always been political. And Bishop was wrong: neither Walker's performance nor the emotional heft of the arrival of the Toitū te Tiriti flags and supporters in the room was 'a load of crap'. It was the undeniable emotional heart of the evening. But the Aotearoa Music Awards are publicly funded, and streamed on both TVNZ and RNZ. To have something so close to a party political moment within them would rankle those who don't share those politics. To put it another way, imagine Groundswell or Family First, neither of which are as party aligned as Toitū te Tiriti, showing up and the reception they would receive. It's part of an increasingly explicit and party political alignment of our cultural figures, particularly in these fractious times, where performers can feel contemptuous of the views of those who are elected to represent them. While arts funding does wax and wane according to different governments, the idea that it should exist has endured for decades. When it goes beyond statements to specific party-aligned organisations, the bipartisan support for such funding might become more contested. Not to mention its broad appeal, inside and outside of parliament.
